Thursday, February 28, 2008

A stupid way to attack the Son of Cain

If you read this blog with any regularity, you know I have very few positive things to say about John McCain - or "Son of Cain" as I prefer to call him. However, the stories that the New York Times are running in an attempt to hurt his candidacy are simply pathetic. First there was the non-story about McCain's rumored dalliance with female lobbyist, and now, the Times is floating the non-story that McCain could be ineligible to run for president, because he was born in Panama. I feel somewhat idiotic by even addressing this issue, but in my zeal to stick it to the Times, here is my layman's opinion on the matter:

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution says the following:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President....
Please note that the wording says natural born Citizen, not native born Citizen. Natural born means that you were born a citizen of this country; you weren't born as a citizen of another country and became naturalized. I haven't checked, but I do believe the Son of Cain was not a Panamanian citizen first, and became an American citizen later. He was born to U.S. Navy parents in the Panama Canal Zone.

What amuses me most about this whole non-story is that while the Times is wringing their hands about Son of Cain's citizenship status, let us not forget their editorial opinion about the citizenship status of children born in this country to parents who are here illegally. Ohhhh, you bet the Times welcomes those children as full-fledged citizens of the United States. But a baby born to American parents who are involuntarily serving overseas with the American military? In that case, the Times is not so sure about the Son of Cain's citizenship status.

There are plenty of reasons to not want the Son of Cain to be the President of the United States. The status of his birth to American parents in a foreign country should not be one of them.

Good Day to You, Sir

2 comments:

Don, American said...

The New York Times was thoroughly discredited a couple of years ago, wasn't it?

Law and Order Teacher said...

Nice try, NYT. If this is what's done before the Dems pick their candidate, we're in for a long summer.